How India almost came close to becoming a surveillance state

NEW DELHI: Under fire for trying to create a “surveillance state,” the government told the Supreme Court it was dropping a plan to set up a social media communication hub that the opposition had said would be used to muzzle political dissent.The government, however, kept its options open on reviving the plan.“We are reviewing the policy and may come up with another scheme later,” attorney general KK Venugopal told the three-judge bench of chief justice Dipak Misra along with justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud. “The government is withdrawing the RFP (request for proposal),” Venugopal said, referring to the call for bids to set up the watchdog infrastructure.Justice Chandrachud had been scathing about the plan during a hearing on the matter last month.“We will become a surveillance state if this happens,” he had said.The project involved establishing interconnected social media communication hubs across the country to tap into chatter and creating 360-degree profiles of those seen as influencing discourse. It was intended to give analytical inputs to the government to “mould public opinion” and “inculcate nationalistic feelings,” according to the RFP.The winning contractor was expected to provide the capability of trawling through emails and social media interactions. The April 24 RFP had prompted Trinamool Congress MLA Mohua Moitra to move a public interest litigation (PIL) against the scheme, saying it was against the fundamental right to privacy in light of last year’s landmark ruling on the matter by the Supreme Court.When the court reconvened on Friday morning, the government withdrew the proposal rather than run the risk of facing adverse orders. This is a second instance in which the government has backed off on plans to introduce controversial schemes to pre-empt court intervention.The government earlier this year withdrew its controversial cattle trade rules banning the cull of cattle bought from mal markets.The plan had panicked the meat industry, which moved the court for a stay. The government had then said the policy would be reviewed and new rules framed. These are still awaited.

from The Economic Times https://ift.tt/2KmFLrA